论精神病患者的刑事责任

在我国精神医学中,精神疾病与精神障碍的含义并不相同,从刑事责任能力的主要内容来看,我国刑法中精神病是指广义的精神疾病,而在刑事责任能力评定工作中存在是对法律、法规的理解不一致,掌握尺度不同的问题,最终造成评定结果不一致,因此必须对刑事责任能力的评定标准作深入理解与探讨。本文综观法律关于精神病的刑事责任实践与立法,对我国精神病人的刑事责任能力进行深入探讨,发现在当今司法实践中精神病鉴定存在的一系列问题,并对此提出意见,为完善精神病人刑事责任,建立统一的精神病人刑事责任能力评定标准提供理论依据。     

对新《刑法》第18条的理解与运用

本文就我国新刑法第18条中精神病的涵义,精神病患者刑事责任能力评定,精神病的医学鉴定以及对精神病人的监护治疗问题谈个人看法。供执法者和鉴定工作者在处理有关精神疾病案件时参考。     

论精神障碍人刑事责任能力的认定

我国《刑法》第18条第1款规定了精神病人在不能辨认或不能控制自己行为时犯罪的,不负刑事责任.该条款的适用涉及到刑法学、精神医学、司法鉴定学等不同学科,适用时较为复杂.本文认为精神病人应作广义的理解,它既包括精神病性精神障碍者,也包括非精神病性精神障碍者;其是否具有刑事责任能力应该根据精神病人的行为心理特征综合分析评定.     

医事刑法视域中的精神障碍

我国刑法中精神病概念应修正为精神障碍。精神障碍者刑事责任承担应依其行为当时主观罪过程度由法官客观厘定,并在坚持精神卫生学与法学标准相统一、主客观相结合的判定原则下,将其划分为完全无刑事责任能力、限制刑事责任能力和完全刑事责任能力三个层级。对精神障碍犯罪者坚持减免刑罚的原则,并注重扩大强制医疗和相应保安处分适用范围。     

论精神障碍者的刑事责任能力

我国刑法第18条规定确定了精神障碍者刑事责任能力的三分法,较符合司法精神医学理论及实践.然而,由于"精神病人"这一概念具有狭窄性与不确定性,大多数学者主张对其采取广义解释,同时存在少数反对扩张论者.本文指出精神障碍者刑事责任能力认定标准应坚持医学--法学标准,由法官最终决定精神障碍者刑事责任能力问题.     

全国司法鉴定人继续教育基地举办司法精神病鉴定培训班

8月9日～11日,在吉林省司法厅司法鉴定管理处的大力支持与协助下,2011年度司法精神病鉴定培训班在长春举办。本次培训班着重介绍并推广了2011年司法部颁布的＂精神障碍者司法鉴定精神检查规范＂、＂精神障碍者服刑能力评定指南＂、＂精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定指南＂三项规范。     

对人格分裂患者犯罪若干问题的研究

我国《刑法》第18条从立法上确立了精神障碍患者刑事责任能力的"三分法",是解决精神障碍人刑事责任能力问题的主要法律依据。但人格分裂患者犯罪的问题在我国一直没有得到足够重视。我国司法实践中往往忽视其病理因素。本文认为人格分裂应属于精神疾病,会对行为人行为能力产生巨大影响,其犯罪应视具体情况加以定性处罚。     

论精神疾病患者的刑事责任能力

精神疾病患者的刑事责任能力问题,是一个司法精神医学问题,同时也是一个法学问题,而且主要是一个法学问题.这不仅因为司法精神医学部门对精神疾病患者的刑事责任能力所作出的鉴定,最终将作为刑事证据而在司法部门对精神疾病患者犯罪进行处理的过程中发挥作用,而且因为对精神疾病患者的刑事责任能力作出鉴定,必须以刑法为根据.     

精神障碍者的刑事责任能力:对规范的比较考察

<正> 一、确定刑事责任能力的标准 精神障碍者刑事责任能力的确定标准,也即刑事法律对于精神障碍者刑事责任能力的立法方式。世界各国刑法虽然普遍对精神障碍者的刑事责任能力作出了相应的规定,确认精神障碍是影响行为人刑事责任能力的重要因素;但是,各国刑法所规定的精神障碍者刑事责任能力的判定标准或所采用的立法方式,却存在着相当大的差别。这大致可以分为以下三类:     

《精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定标准（草案）》浅议

刑事责任能力的评定是司法精神病鉴定的重要工作之一。我国司法精神病鉴定工作者在长期的鉴定实践中已积累了极其丰富的经验．并通过不懈的努力和探索在相关标准及评定工具的研究方面取得了长足的进展。作者认为编制精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定标准是十分必要的．编制原则是必须既符合我国现行法律规定。又不脱离鉴定的实践经验，《精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定标准（草案）》基本符合这一要求。作者还就编制标准有待达成共识的几个问题：如辨认能力概念、使用何种精神疾病诊断分类系统、不能仅依辨认或控制能力评定责任能力的特殊情况及量化工具的使用问题提出了自己的看法。     

反思精神障碍强制医疗的“危险性”原则

很多国家精神卫生立法在强制医疗人院标准方面都适用了“危险性”原则,我国《精神卫生法》也在其列。然而,“危险性”原则是基于三个错误的假设,因此实际上“危险性”原则可能会增加精神疾病对患者的伤害和较大程度增加社区危险的风险。本文呼吁参考Large及Richardson的观点及美国部分州与苏格兰精神卫生立法的实证经验,在“危险性”原则基础上补充“拒绝治疗的能力”评定作为精神障碍者强制医疗入院标准。     

54例脑外伤精神伤残重新鉴定分析

目的 研究有争议的脑外伤后各种精神伤残案例,分析其在初次鉴定中暴露出来的问题,并探讨解决问题的方法.方法 收集2007-2011年上海市司法鉴定中心脑外伤后致精神障碍重新鉴定案件,分别对初次鉴定和重新鉴定的资料进行分析比较.结果 鉴定时机不当,初次鉴定时鉴定人对被鉴定人的精神状态调查不全面、不客观,鉴定人对标准的理解有...     

A comparison of mental health legislation from diverse Commonwealth jurisdictions

IntroductionIn the regulation of involuntary treatment, a balance must be found between duties of care and protection and the right to self-determination. Despite its shared common roots, the mental health legislation of Commonwealth countries approaches this balance in different ways. When reform is planned, lessons can be learned from the experiences of other countries.MethodCriteria for involuntary treatment used in a sample of 32 Commonwealth Mental Health Acts were compared using a framework developed from standards derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Reasons for non-compliance were considered and examples of good practice were noted. Changes in the criteria used over time and across areas with differing levels of economic development were analysed.Results1. Widespread deviation from standards was demonstrated, suggesting that some current legislation may be inadequate for the protection of the human rights of people with mental disorders. 2. Current trends in Commonwealth mental health law reform include a move towards broad diagnostic criteria, use of capacity and treatability tests, treatment in the interests of health rather than safety, and regular reviews of treatment orders. Nevertheless, there are some striking exceptions.DiscussionExplanations for deviation from the standards include differing value perspectives underpinning approaches to balancing conflicting principles, failure to keep pace with changing attitudes to mental disorder, and variations in the resources available for providing treatment and undertaking law reform. Current good practice provides examples of ways of dealing with some of these difficulties.     

Chapter 17: Psychoses in the Aged

Psychoses in the aged are a group of mental diseases that occur only in the elderly, usually after the age of 45 to 60. These mental disorders are not due to processes of ordinary aging (involution), which in itself is not a pathologic state, although it is characterized by gradual physical and mental changes in the direction of a general wasting. These psychoses occur in only a small number of elderly persons. Manifestations of disease cannot be regarded as merely an intensification of the normal psychologic features of the aged; rather, a definite pathologic mental condition is evident.     

Chapter 20: Oligophrenia (Congenital Dementia)

In psychiatry, oligophrenia, or congenital dementia, refers to a group of pathologic mental states that are congenital or acquired in early infancy. The general and principal sign of oligophrenia is a deficiency in intellectual activity — feeblemindedness of varying degrees — combined with disturbance of other aspects of the cognitive process, above all with affective and volitional disorders and various physical and neurological symptoms. Korsakov pointed out that an incapacity to comprehend the meaning and substance of things and phenomena and a frequent absence of purpose in intellectual acts were characteristic of patients with this condition. As a rule, oligophrenia is not marked by an exacerbation of pathologic mental changes, and in this respect it differs from other mental diseases. Congenital dementia is distinguished from acquired dementia, which is characterized by a reduction or disintegration of normal mental activity as a result of some pathologic process.     

刑事责任能力评定中“待分类的精神病性障碍”的诊断分析

目的探讨"待分类的精神病性障碍"诊断在刑事责任能力鉴定中的形成原因、判定原则及处理措施。方法分析比较四川西南司法鉴定中心2006年1月至2007年7月刑事责任能力鉴定案例中12例诊断为"待分类的精神病性障碍"的鉴定资料。结果形成此诊断的主要原因是鉴定资料不充分,描述的被鉴定人精神异常表现不具体、不典型(83.3%),或鉴定资料描述的精神异常与鉴定检查时发现的情况不一致。但是即使诊断为"待分类的精神病性障碍",仍可以从作案动机、有无逃逸等评定其刑事责任能力。12例诊断为"待分类的精神病性障碍"的被鉴定人9例(75%)判定为具有限制刑事责任能力,3例(25%)判定为无刑事责任能力。结论"待分类的精神病性障碍"是一种暂时性诊断,在一定程度上可以在司法精神病鉴定中使用,但应慎用。     

The role of the psychiatrist in evaluating a prison mental health system in litigation

Federal courts during the past 14 years have recognized that many prisons in the United States have provided constitutionally inadequate medical and psychiatric services. Our recent national survey indicates that at least 20 states have had at least one part of their correctional system included in a certified class action suit that alleged insufficient mental health services for inmates. This article reviews the role of the expert psychiatric witness during the phases of litigation that involve proposed remedial plans and compliance in implementing remedial plans. Available epidemiologic data about psychiatric disorders among prison inmates, standards for correctional mental health care, and various mental health system models are briefly reviewed. A comprehensive approach to evaluating proposed remedial plans and assessing issues of compliance with accepted plans is described. Special attention is directed toward psychiatric issues unique to a correctional system.     

The "untreatability" of psychopathy and hospital commitment in the USA

One argument in support of a public policy of not subjecting persons with psychopathic disorders to civil or criminal commitment is that these disorders do not improve with treatment. This article examines the relationship between the assumption of untreatability of psychopathic disorders and outpatient civil commitment, inpatient civil commitment, and insanity acquittee commitment. Research on the treatability of psychopathy is reviewed and the treatment of conditions co-morbid with psychopathy is considered. Research evidence is insufficient to support the conclusion that psychopathy is improved, worsened or not affected by treatment. Evidence does support effective treatments for conditions that can be co-morbid with psychopathic disorders including impulsive aggression which can be interpreted as a manifestation of psychopathic disorder.The absence of evidence based treatment efficacy for psychopathic disorders is a logical reason for not subjecting individuals with only a psychopathic disorder to involuntary hospitalization. This assumption should not becloud the possibility of treatable co-morbid conditions which may or may not qualify for involuntary hospitalization. Where the primary mental disorder, for which an individual is involuntarily hospitalized, results in behavioral improvement, the continued presence of a psychopathic disorder itself, should not be sufficient reason to continue coerced confinement. Even so, where the primary disorder is incompletely treated, psychopathy can be considered a risk factor when deciding upon the appropriate time for discharge and when formulating a safe and effective after care plan.     

精神障碍患者非自愿收治程序设计的若干法律问题研究(上)刘瑞爽

对于精神障碍患者的非自愿收治,应注意保障患者的人身权利,尤其是合理程序保障的权利。比较分析国际上的各国立法,在收治程序各个环节上,均须体现出对人权的保护,其主要问题有：制定强制收治的标准、送治主体、收治主体、初步裁定的步骤和时限、对初步裁定的救济、法律代表人制度、司法审查的介入（或独立第三方的介入）、危险的证明、避免无限期拘留而进行的后续定期审查、患者方获取信息的权利保障、上诉等。我国应坚持程序正义原则,借鉴国际上先进立法经验,弥补我国精神障碍患者非自愿收治程序设计的立法漏洞。